From Signatures to Proofs: A New Blockchain Approach

12 replies 21 views
stack2018Full Member
Posts: 11 · Reputation: 708
#1Feb 13, 2021, 12:39 AM
UPDATE July 20, 2026 So Specter got archived after its prototype revealed serious flaws in its architecture. The original post below is kept here as a reminder of its history. They've started over from square one, rebranding it as ParanO(1)d. More deets here if you're interested.
7 Reply Quote Share
Posts: 32 · Reputation: 237
#2Feb 13, 2021, 05:32 AM
March 2026 Been working on something wild, a design that ditches signatures from the Bitcoin model and tackles post-quantum issues.
1 Reply Quote Share
stack2018Full Member
Posts: 11 · Reputation: 708
#3Feb 14, 2021, 06:36 PM
Lol, did the author copy Mimblewimble's style or what? I mean, check this out: SPECTER Ignotus Nemo Version 1.0 March 23, 2026 Versus: MIMBLEWIMBLE Tom Elvis Jedusor July 19, 2016 Totally feels like a throwback.
1 Reply Quote Share
Posts: 32 · Reputation: 237
#4Feb 14, 2021, 10:01 PM
Yeah, the homage is clear. Mimblewimble paved the way for anonymous proposals. "Ignotus Nemo" seems to be tapping into that legacy.
0 Reply Quote Share
stack2018Full Member
Posts: 11 · Reputation: 708
#5Feb 15, 2021, 01:47 AM
True, there are some projects using the term Spectre. But the spelling is off, so I don’t think it’s a huge deal... could be revisited later.
2 Reply Quote Share
stack2018Full Member
Posts: 11 · Reputation: 708
#6Feb 15, 2021, 07:34 AM
Also, RandomX is a bit of a beast. Slower and more complex than straightforward hash-based proof of work. But it’s all about tackling ASIC dominance, right?
5 Reply Quote Share
Posts: 32 · Reputation: 237
#7Feb 15, 2021, 09:38 AM
But doesn’t that just end up being kind of messy? Like, higher verification cost with RandomX just adds to node strain during synchronization. Ain't that counterproductive?
1 Reply Quote Share
stack2018Full Member
Posts: 11 · Reputation: 708
#8Feb 17, 2021, 02:43 AM
Couldn’t they use aggregated proofs for PoW instead? Like, just tweak the aggregated proof to go for the hash. Also, what about a cumulative approach to streamline the whole chain?
4 Reply Quote Share
stack2018Full Member
Posts: 11 · Reputation: 708
#9Feb 19, 2021, 04:50 AM
Nice point. I’m on board with the cumulative validity idea. But I’m kind of cautious about using proof as PoW. It complicates the whole mining process and might invite centralization.
2 Reply Quote Share
stack2018Full Member
Posts: 11 · Reputation: 708
#10Feb 19, 2021, 09:17 AM
We’ve got the Specter 2.0 whitepaper now! Big structural changes, not just tweaks. Introduces epoch certificates that compress block proofs into a single validity chain tied to PoW.
0 Reply Quote Share
stack2018Full Member
Posts: 11 · Reputation: 708
#11Feb 19, 2021, 07:41 PM
Just built a tiny prototype called "specter-min". No signatures at all. No public keys. Nothing. Just trying to see if we can ditch traditional methods completely.
0 Reply Quote Share
stack2018Full Member
Posts: 11 · Reputation: 708
#12Feb 19, 2021, 08:06 PM
Development updates: We've done a lot: - Defined transaction and witness schemas - Benchmarked proving and verifying costs - Brought Poseidon 2 to life - Achieved witness-free verification It’s getting exciting!
0 Reply Quote Share
Posts: 3523 · Reputation: 35
#13Feb 19, 2021, 11:57 PM
Final update: Specter confirmed that transaction authorization can exist without public keys and signatures... but just removing signatures isn’t the sole solution. The surrounding architecture didn’t scale as expected, so it got archived.
2 Reply Quote Share

Related topics